Chapter XVI.—Of the
Literary Labors of the Two Apollinares and the Emperor’s
Prohibition of Christians being instructed in Greek Literature.

The imperial law523523 Cf. Sozom. V. 18; also above, II. 46.
which forbade Christians to study Greek literature, rendered the two
Apolli87nares of whom we have above
spoken, much more distinguished than before. For both being skilled in
polite learning, the father as a grammarian, and the son as a
rhetorician, they made themselves serviceable to the Christians at this
crisis. For the former, as a grammarian, composed a grammar consistent
with the Christian faith: he also translated the Books of Moses into
heroic verse; and paraphrased all the historical books of the Old
Testament, putting them partly into dactylic measure, and partly
reducing them to the form of dramatic tragedy. He purposely employed
all kinds of verse, that no form of expression peculiar to the Greek
language might be unknown or unheard of amongst Christians. The younger
Apollinaris, who was well trained in eloquence, expounded the gospels
and apostolic doctrines in the way of dialogue, as Plato among the
Greeks had done. Thus showing themselves useful to the Christian cause
they overcame the subtlety of the emperor through their own labors. But
Divine Providence was more potent than either their labors, or the
craft of the emperor: for not long afterwards, in the manner we shall
hereafter explain,524524 Chap. 21.
the law became wholly inoperative; and the works of these men are now
of no greater importance, than if they had never been written. But
perhaps some one will vigorously reply saying: ‘On what grounds
do you affirm that both these things were effected by the providence of
God? That the emperor’s sudden death was very advantageous to
Christianity is indeed evident: but surely the rejection of the
Christian compositions of the two Apollinares, and the Christians
beginning afresh to imbue their minds with the philosophy of the
heathens, this works out no benefit to Christianity, for pagan
philosophy teaches Polytheism, and is injurious to the promotion of
true religion.’ This objection I shall meet with such
considerations as at present occur to me. Greek literature certainly
was never recognized either by Christ or his Apostles as divinely
inspired, nor on the other hand was it wholly rejected as pernicious.
And this they did, I conceive, not inconsiderately. For there were many
philosophers among the Greeks who were not far from the knowledge of
God; and in fact these being disciplined by logical science,
strenuously opposed the Epicureans and other contentious Sophists who
denied Divine Providence, confuting their ignorance. And for these
reasons they have become useful to all lovers of real piety:
nevertheless they themselves were not acquainted with the Head of true
religion, being ignorant of the mystery of Christ which ‘had been
hidden from generations and ages.’525525Col. i.
26.
And that this was so, the Apostle in his epistle to the Romans thus
declares:526526Rom. i.
18–21.
‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in
them; for God has shown it unto them. For the invisible things of him
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, that they
may be without excuse; because that when they knew God, they glorified
him not as God.’ From these words it appears that they had the
knowledge of truth, which God had manifested to them; but were guilty
on this account, that when they knew God, they glorified him not as
God. Wherefore by not forbidding the study of the learned works of the
Greeks, they left it to the discretion of those who wished to do so.
This is our first argument in defense of the position we took: another
may be thus put: The divinely inspired Scriptures undoubtedly inculcate
doctrines that are both admirable in themselves, and heavenly in their
character: they also eminently tend to produce piety and integrity of
life in those who are guided by their precepts, pointing out a walk of
faith which is highly approved of God. But they do not instruct us in
the art of reasoning, by means of which we may be enabled successfully
to resist those who oppose the truth. Besides adversaries are most
easily foiled, when we can use their own weapons against them. But this
power was not supplied to Christians by the writings of the
Apollinares. Julian had this in mind when he by law prohibited
Christians from being educated in Greek literature, for he knew very
well that the fables it contains would expose the whole pagan system,
of which he had become the champion to ridicule and contempt. Even
Socrates, the most celebrated of their philosophers, despised these
absurdities, and was condemned on account of it, as if he had attempted
to violate the sanctity of their deities. Moreover, both Christ and his
Apostle enjoin us ‘to become discriminating
money-changers,’527527 On this extra-Scriptural saying attributed to Jesus
Christ, see n. 54, Introd, p. xi.
so that we might ‘prove all things, and hold fast that which is
good’:5285281 Thess. v.
21.
directing us also to ‘beware lest any one should spoil us through
philosophy and vain deceit.’529529Col. ii.
8.
But this we cannot do, unless we possess ourselves of the weapons of
our adversaries: taking care that in making this acquisition we do not
adopt their sentiments, but testing them, reject the evil, but retain
all that is good and true: for good wher88ever it is found, is a property of truth.
Should any one imagine that in making these assertions we wrest the
Scriptures from their legitimate construction, let it be remembered
that the Apostle not only does not forbid our being instructed in Greek
learning, but that he himself seems by no means to have neglected it,
inasmuch as he knows many of the sayings of the Greeks. Whence did he
get the saying, ‘The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts,
slow-bellies,’530530Tit. i.
12.
but from a perusal of The Oracles of Epimenides,531531 Cf. Theophrastus, VII. x. and Diogenes Lærtius,
I. x. The latter gives a list of Epimenides’ works, but makes no
mention of any ‘Oracles.’ Socrates must have used this term
in a more general sense therefore, and meant some collection of obscure
and mystical writings. He also calls Epimenides an
‘Initiator,’ because, according to the testimony of
Theophrastus, he was versed particularly in lustration and
coruscation.
the Cretan Initiator? Or how would he have known this, ‘For we
are also his offspring,’532532Acts xvii.
28.
had he not been acquainted with The Phenomena of Aratus533533 Fabricius, Bibl. Græc. II. p. 451
seq.
the astronomer? Again this sentence, ‘Evil communications corrupt
good manners,’5345341 Cor. xv.
33.
is a sufficient proof that he was conversant with the tragedies of
Euripides.535535 Menander, and not Euripides, is the only author to
whom this line can be traced (see Tertull. ad Uxor. 1. 8, and
Meineke, Fragm. Comic. Græc. Vol. IV. p. 132), but it may
have been a popular proverb, or even originally a composition of
Euripides, which Menander simply used.
But what need is there of enlarging on this point? It is well known
that in ancient times the doctors of the church by unhindered usage
were accustomed to exercise themselves in the learning of the Greeks,
until they had reached an advanced age: this they did with a view to
improve themselves in eloquence and to strengthen and polish their
mind, and at the same time to enable them to refute the errors of the
heathen. Let these remarks be sufficient in the subject suggested by
the two Apollinares.

531 Cf. Theophrastus, VII. x. and Diogenes Lærtius,
I. x. The latter gives a list of Epimenides’ works, but makes no
mention of any ‘Oracles.’ Socrates must have used this term
in a more general sense therefore, and meant some collection of obscure
and mystical writings. He also calls Epimenides an
‘Initiator,’ because, according to the testimony of
Theophrastus, he was versed particularly in lustration and
coruscation.

535 Menander, and not Euripides, is the only author to
whom this line can be traced (see Tertull. ad Uxor. 1. 8, and
Meineke, Fragm. Comic. Græc. Vol. IV. p. 132), but it may
have been a popular proverb, or even originally a composition of
Euripides, which Menander simply used.